You forgot f/1.9 (Miranda). :-) Since I own about a dozen 50mm lenses
I'm well aware that most aren't actually f/2. But, since I didn't want
to enumerate them all and, since f/1.8 is only about 1/4 stop away from
f/2, for practical purposes they're all f/2 in my book.
But you're right about the pancake design. Maybe an f/2 optic was just
too big to be called pancake.
Chuck Norcutt
Leandro DUTRA wrote:
> 2008/3/5, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Can the E-520 be far behind?
>
> Possibly not. Olympus is well aware of the possibility of the E-510
> being cannibalised by the E-420, and pressed between it and the
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10.
>
> On the other hand, I am under the impression the E-410 hasn't sold as
> well as it was hoped, so it might have received upgraded priority to
> revive its lot.
>
>
>> ...I was very pleased to see the 25mm prime. On the other hand,
>> I was very disappointed to see it was only f/2.8. I would have expected
>> an f/2 optic to match the commonplace 50mm lenses of old.
>
> Actually these were f:1,8 (Olympus OM-10), f:1,7 (Konica), even 1,4
> (OM-1). But none were pancakes like the new Zuiko ED. So a 25mm
> f:1,8 or even 1,4 more compact than the Panasonic Leica, but
> weathersealed, still is a possibility.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|